not to be jerk or anything, but if I said that a cow or an elephant is the only thing that soothes me so accommodate them in a plane?
How many other people should be inconvenienced by my issues?
How many other people should be inconvenienced by my issues?
A. Your examples are of animals disallowed - not allowed.
B. Those animals are obviously much more feasible, physically.
C. Regardless of how feasible they are, I simply gave a reasonable answer to the question - I didn't imply that all human systems have that same answer.
You should explain your thoughts, instead of only posting links with no context.
It's reasonable for a blind person to take their guide dog on a plane. It's reasonable for someone with mental illness to take their well trained support animal on the plane.
It's unreasonable for someone who's struggling a bit to take their pet cow on a plane.
The whole thing is a big grey area. The rules should be explicit.
The court system. I say something is reasonable, you do not and don't allow me on a flight so I take you to court over it and the court decides.
It might be a common sense thing to say that no one would ever want or have need to use a horse as a service animal, but there are miniature horses that are service animals.
Also IIRC miniature horses being service animals is explicitly part of the law, so I'm not sure why you're using that as an example.
So no, the airlines don't have to accept someone's service animal that isn't a dog.
How would that even work, too? If a random person decides that somebody's disability doesn't exist, do they then just barge in even more than usual. "I decided that your coeliac disease didn't exist, so I used wheat as a thickener. Your fault for not explaining it better."